|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
200
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Incursions: Identical across all security regions with a nominal alteration in payout. Thought is was a 50% increase going from high to low/null? Do you count this as nominal or do I have the numbers wrong? |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
200
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Step 1: Remove incursions from hisec It was my impression that incursions were partially developed with highsec in mind. There was talk of promoting interaction and learning of basic fleet mechanics which people in low/null would be expected to have. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
200
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:Incursions: Identical across all security regions with a nominal alteration in payout. Thought is was a 50% increase going from high to low/null? Do you count this as nominal or do I have the numbers wrong? IIRC the difference is a little over 30%, which is nominal given the additional effort required to form a fleet and get ships to location. You also cannot use the same "shiny" fleets, unless you are very certain of how secure the area is, and a noticeable increase in NPC deaths will very quickly bring people to the system to check on you. Basically if you think waiting a little while for a fleet in high sec is bad, try forming a low sec incursion fleet. I would have thought the form-up wait would be lower as you have a closed pool of allies and should relatively quickly know if/how/when you are running. Some highsec groups have this convenience as well, others not so much. The group I run with has alot of downtime during certain parts of the day often from a lack of pilots.
As far as the numbers, I believe the highsec sites have a 0.7 multiplier of the null/low values. I don't shiny fit so I have no clue as to how much more effective it makes the ship, but I've seen nullsec players claim to do quite well facerolling NCO's in legions prior to the change.
There is the concern of the dangers of those areas, but what is the "fair" multiplication factor in accounting for this? Too low and it's not worth it, but the fact that they were done before means to someone it was worth it, and too high and the income level becomes broken. Maybe that needs revisited? |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
200
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:04:00 -
[4] - Quote
I have this odd feeling that I'm the only one who likes OTA's now... |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
200
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
DJ N00B wrote:Very quick and to the point.
The changes are a start but I don't feel they really are enough to get people running vg's again. They also don't address the biggest issue, that being the ota's. OTA's are too hard for fleets other than super shiney ones. So the end result is going to be stacking OTA's in systems with very few, if any, fleet running them.
Define supershiny. I've been in a system where they stacked because they took longer, but not because they were impossible and the fleet was a mix of ships including a tech 1 BS, a few navy and pirate BS's and a couple of T3's and not everyone was shiny fit, some only running T2 mods. Even then it wasn't particularly painful. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
200
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:43:00 -
[6] - Quote
Pseudo Ucksth wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: There is the concern of the dangers of those areas, but what is the "fair" multiplication factor in accounting for this? Too low and it's not worth it, but the fact that they were done before means to someone it was worth it, and too high and the income level becomes broken. Maybe that needs revisited?
We don't need to talk multiples, we need to talk straight isk/hour. The payouts were too high, and now they're too low. Even though we do have a closed pool of allies to draw from, not everyone is available to run 23/7, especially during deployments. Lowsec & nullsec incursions should be balanced to pay out about as much per individual as high-end solo ratting, or else everyone is just going to go hide in their sanctums with their tengus instead of coming out to socialize. Currently, in Fountain, doing anomalies with a tengu that has fighters assigned to it can make upwards of 90m/hr. Many people who don't have a carrier have a second tengu and can make even more. CCP: We don't care what the missions are or what flaming hoops we have to jump through to get the payouts, as long as it's balanced with other forms of income. The magic number is between 80-90. That was a comment about the ratio of highsec to nullsec payouts to make doing them in low/null worth it compared to high, not highsec worth it compared to other activities. Keeping in mind that so long as the ratio exists it will scale to the actual values the sites pay out at, this number remains entirely relevant to making sure Null/lowsec incursions are and remain worth the extra risk. All sec bands being less than worthwhile now (according to the consensus on the forums) is a separate issue. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
200
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:Incursions: Identical across all security regions with a nominal alteration in payout. Thought is was a 50% increase going from high to low/null? Do you count this as nominal or do I have the numbers wrong? It's not even close to 50%. I may be wrong about the multiplier then. My math came out to a ~42% increase going from high to low. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
200
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:00:00 -
[8] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:I may be wrong about the multiplier then. My math came out to a ~42% increase going from high to low. That'd make sense if people were flying shiny fleets outside of hisec. Which goes back to my question, how much higher is right?
Also apparently I'm the only one who likes OTA's AND doesn't shiny fits (in highsec). |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
201
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:26:00 -
[9] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:ISeeDeath wrote:From my personal view and from a lot of friends i made during making incursions this statement could not be more wrong.
What do you do in EVE with the friends you made running incursions? Besides running incursions, of course They complain about the reduced ISK/hr ratio that made them all decide that running incursions was no longer "fun". If these "incursion communities" were a real thing they'd have stuck together after the nerf and moved on as a community to other things. We'd be hearing a constant flow of stories about how they came together and had fun and bonded, and now they're running a wormspace operation in a C5, or carving out a name for themselves in a quiet corner of Aridia or Syndicate,and how glad they were that the Incursions gave them the opportunity to meet and get to know each other. Instead they melted away overnight when the isk tap was turned down. Just to note, some of us are still running. We may not be nearly as numerous, but we're far from completely gone.
I see many of the same people when I run, and for me there is a great deal of entertainment just sitting in TS and listening, but that doesn't mean that outside of incursions we have the same interests so far as other areas of the game are concerned.
Some came from null because even post nerf it was more fun that doing null anoms solo, others were part time WH dwellers. Some were funding ships for lowsec fun. Of those there are 2 I have no interest in so it makes little sense for me to just up and join them on a permanent basis, but we all enjoy working with each other in the activity which we commonly share. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
201
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:39:00 -
[10] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:General Jung wrote:Dear CCP,
that seems good, but there will be still the problem that larger sites won-Št reward to effort. So it would be helpful if you add a 15% more payout for AS and 25% payout increasement for the HQ. Then lets hope that all FCs, who decide to boycott incursions will come back and that the playerbase to recruite from will be normalized through the changes you will implement. So basically you want high sec incursion income to surpass low sec again? No. If they were all increased across the board, that would still mean low/null assaults/HQ's were still paying higher.
Or is there some other issue I'm missing? |
|

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:47:00 -
[11] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Going by Selene's latest blog post the CSM and CCP discussed some of the real problems with Incursions (full article here: http://seleenes-sandbox.blogspot.com): Quote: * The Incursion story line - will this ever end? There's no real sense of danger. **** needs to get real.
* "NPC" space doesn't feel very alive. There are no convoys anymore, etc... Why don't the NPCs react to all of this bad stuff going on in their space?
* If the Sansha are invading, wouldn't CONCORD be busy dealing with that and not capsuleers? (totally legit question)
This is what CCP should be working on fixing with Incursions, particularly the last point. Either Incursions in High Sec lose CONCORD protection or High Sec should lose Incursions. Incursions that loose Concord protection are inherently not highsec incursions. Either way you are asking for the same thing. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 00:41:00 -
[12] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Xorv wrote:This is what CCP should be working on fixing with Incursions, particularly the last point. Either Incursions in High Sec lose CONCORD protection or High Sec should lose Incursions. Incursions that loose Concord protection are inherently not highsec incursions. Either way you are asking for the same thing. I think he knows  Yes, in terms of CONCORD mechanics they're largely the same thing, but in a broader sense they are not. High Sec could have Incursions which drop security to the same as Low Sec or NPC Null sec for the duration, but that would not make those Incursions identical in experience to Incursions in already existing Low or Null Sec as it's both temporary and more dynamic. As general design philosophy I believe CCP should abandon principally defining space by the degree of NPC/game mechanic security provided, and instead think of of it terms of Player Controlled or NPC Controlled. A more pure sandbox player generated politics vs Lore based NPC politics, but neither should automatically mean more safety for the player. The idea mostly proliferated by players themselves of a near or absolutely safe High Sec should be publicly dispatched by CCP in such a way that such treachery against the spirit of Sandbox MMOs may never resurface here again. Mostly safe trade areas, fine. Safe newbie starter zones fine. However, all desirable resources, the "farms and fields" should be found in dangerous space whether that space is NPC or player controlled. They can start with Incursions! The scope of your argument puts it well past the realm of incursions and does little to acclimate to the type of change you want. You are literally talking about changing the rules of engagement around a person with no warning of any kind. If it should be decided that a change from current mechanics is needed it should be announced and allow people the opportunity for people to prepare.
Additionally, highsec without concord is still functionally lowsec. The dynamic creation of lowsec doesn't change the way that people do and will react to that type of space. The only likely difference will be the people caught with their pants down by early responders hunting prey that didn't and couldn't see it coming. Other than that we have all the aspects that make lowsec underutilized, should those that live there be believed, exasperated by the fact that moving to the constellation is still a "safe" trip.
Without any specific stated mechanics regarding your other suggestion they cannot be criticized, but it bears mentioning that CCP denounces the idea of a totally safe highsec as is. Regardless of player misconceptions this has not changed. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:01:00 -
[13] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:And yet... There is less risk. Which is why low/null would be making more. As it's currently setup and thing that boosts site rewards boosts low/null proportionally more than high.
|
|
|
|